Chin, C-S (2008) An investigation to improve construction information flows. PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin - Madison, USA.
Abstract
A construction project is an information-driven business. From conception to completion, ideas are created, decisions are made and thousands of pieces of information are transferred among project members. The inception and completion of the contractor's tasks rely on complete and prompt responses to related information from the design team. The primary objective of this research is to explore opportunities to improve the information flow in a construction project. Requests for Information (RFI) and submittal processes are selected because they have been commonly used in the construction industry as major vehicles by which to deliver information among project team members and because they are closely related to on-site production. From the contractor's perspective, late response and large variations in information processing time can cause late and unreliable inception and completion of tasks while, from the owner's perspective, they can cause not only disputes and legal claims but also the ultimate failure of the construction project. As a customer who intensively uses RFI and submittal processes, contractors demand prompt and predictable responses from the design team. However, the reality is that on-time response rates are low and variations between the lead times contractors want and actual lead times are large. The study selects three different projects, assesses their process capabilities and develops a series of practical improvement strategies by identifying root causes at the production-flow level. The study demonstrates that performance prediction models reveal a large gap between the demands of the contractor and those of the design team. The study also makes a use of process capability analysis as another assessment to show that the current process is not fully capable of meeting contractors' expectations. Finally, the study develops a graphical performance indicator by employing the process flow concept and suggests how to improve flow performance by addressing factors identified from the qualitative root cause analysis. The context of this dissertation may not be specific because the selected cases may not represent the entire information process of the construction industry. However, the research demonstrates that information flow can be improved by employing new concepts such as Lean and Six Sigma.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Russell, J S |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | failure; project team; construction project; disputes; information processing; variations; owner |
| Index terms: | information processing, dissertation, construction industry, project team, investigation, lead time, dispute, owner, performance prediction, submittal, root cause analysis, construction project, variation, strategy, design team, information flow, performance indicator, six sigma |
| Subjects: | sociology, project controls, information systems, industry analysis, performance management, performance measurement, management, professional development, contractual condition, production management, project delivery, professional practice, data science, risk assessment, data collection methods, research dissemination and communication, dispute resolution |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Information Management, Business Strategy, Time Control, Contract Administration, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Risk Management, Project Management, Quality Management, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here